TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re that an immovable property of a person has been made part of a prosecution complaint for confiscation without making that person as a party and affording that person an opportunity to defend his case. Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA has been amended by the Act 13 of 2018, wherein a limitation period has been provided for continuation of attachment or retention of property or record post confirmation of attachment/retention. It is the intention of the legislature not to allow the Investigating Authority to get the property attached or retained the record/documents/items indefinitely in the name of investigation. It has been admitted, during the course of oral submissions, by the learned counsel for the respondent that no Prosecution Complaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating Authority in OC No. 896/2018. 2. The learned Adjudicating Authority allowed the OC, confirming the prayer of the Enforcement Directorate for attachment of the following immovable property; a) EK-76, Sector-9, Vasundhra Scheme, Ghaziabad, U.P. (area 162 sq.mts.). 3. We had heard both sides and already pronounced the order in the court by allowing the appeal vide order dated 12.04.2019. Now, we are giving our reasons to the aforesaid order as under;- A. The facts of the case in brief: i. It is alleged that the appellant herein Shri Sanjay Kumar was posted in the Ahmedabad Zone of Enforcement Directorate in the year 2015 as Enforcement Officer and was doin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stance of the present appellant and others indulged in corrupt practices in investigation of ECIR No. 3/AMZO/2015. It is alleged that they have taken huge amount of bribes as quid-pro-quo for acts of omission and commission during the investigation of the above case. v. The appellant was arrested by CBI on 17.02.2017 and filed charge sheet against him and others. At present the appellant is on bail from the CBI Court Ahmedabad and facing trials. vi. On the basis of the registration of the above case by CBI, a PMLA case vide ECIR/02/DLZO-II/2017 dated 17.03.2017 was recorded at New Delhi for enquiring and investigating the case of accepting huge amount of illegal bribe money by showing fear and coerciveness. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. I have also considered the rejoinders filed by the Complainant to the written replies. I have heard the Counsel for Defendants at length. I have also heard the Counsel for the Complainant. I have taken into account all the relevant materials placed on record before me. Considering the material in O.C., the written replies and rejoinders an the arguments above referred, I find that the immovable properties provisionally attached by PAO No. 02/2018 dated 07.02.2018, i.e. immovable property at serial no. 1 (page 44 of PAO) standing in the name of D-1 and immovable property at serial no. 2 (page 44 of PAO) standing in the name of D-2, are involved in money laundering. a. I therefore, hereby confirm the atta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y does not survive. 7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent admitted that no Prosecution Complaint has been filed against the present appellant. But Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi Zonal Office-II, the respondent in his written submissions dated 11.04.2019, inter-alia stated that a Prosecution Complaint under Section 44/45 of PMLA, 2002 for commission of offences under this Act was filed before the Hon‟ble Special Judge PMLA, Patiala House Court, New Delhi on 08.02.2018 cognizance has been taken on the complaint and is pending, listed for 12.04.2019 for arguments. It is further stated that the attached property related to Shri Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with the factual and legal issues raised by the parties. The impugned order was passed on 24.07.2018 and no Prosecution Compliant is pending against the appellant even though more than 250 days from the date of impugned order have already been passed. 9. Since, we have decided the appeal in the light of amendment brought in the statute as mentioned above hence, we have not gone into other legal issues raised herein. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 10. In the peculiar circumstances, the appellant may move the concerned Special Court for appropriate remedy, wherein the Prosecution Complaint is pending and his property has been made part and parcel of that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
